FLASHBACK: Religious Apartheid
This report over the weekend about a Newark, NJ grade schooler who was barred from singing a religious song at a school talent show reminded me of a piece I wrote nine years ago on this same subject. Again, the particulars are from 1996 but the theme is just as contemporary as yesterday's headlines.
[HT: Blogs for Bush]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brittney Kaye Settle is a Tennessee ninth-grade student whose class was assigned to write a term paper on a subject that was "interesting, researchable, and decent." Those were the only limiting criteria. After initially selecting drama as her topic, Brittney changed her mind and asked to write on "The Life of Jesus Christ." Her teacher, Dana Ramsey, said no. Why? Because "Brittney's strong personal belief in Christianity...might make it hard for her to write a dispassionate research paper." Or, in other words, Brittney wouldn't write a paper arguing that Christ was legally insane.
Well, that meant that all religious topics were off-limits, right? Wrong. Inquiries by Brittney and her father revealed that Mrs. Ramsey approved and accepted three papers on reincarnation, magic, and spiritualism, respectively. When Brittney's father asked her why these three blatantly religious topics were acceptable but his daughter's report was not, the teacher replied that the other subjects "were not religious." She then raised the standard secularist canard that she was concerned about "the separation of church and state." Moreover, Kurt Beasley, the Settles' attorney, said Mrs. Ramsey has offered at least half a dozen other excuses for why she wouldn't accept Brittney's paper. The Settles appealed to the principal, superintendent, and local school board, all of whom, like good little educrats, backed Mrs. Ramsey.
It should be emphasized here that the Settles were never spoiling for a fight. Brittney is anything but a rebel and has steadfastly refused to grant interviews on this controversy she never asked for (primarily, no doubt, because the national media would try to humiliate her). But she decided she couldn't let this violation of her civil rights stand. So she wrote her term paper on the life of the Savior anyway, and submitted it. Her teacher gave her a zero on the assignment. Thus, Brittney Settle's grades have been made to suffer for no other reason than her religious beliefs.
Thoroughly provoked, Mr. Settle did a little further research and found out some very interesting facts. It turns out that Mrs. Ramsey has an anti-Christian, pro-Hindu religious bias that provides the background for this dispute. For twelve consecutive years she encouraged her students to write term papers on Eastern mysticism. And the fact that her superiors backed her indicates that they knew exactly what she was doing and approved of it as well. The deck, as it were, was clearly, and unconstitutionally, stacked.
With no other recourse available, the Settle family filed suit against the school in federal court. However, U.S. District Judge Thomas Wiseman didn't even permit Brittney's case to go to trial. This dismissal was appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, which upheld the lower court's decision. The Clinton Justice Department refused to request that the Supreme Court review the case, and on 27 November 1995 the high court refused to hear it. This miscarriage of justice was allowed to stand.
Some reaction to this travesty, at least, was sensible. Michael Paulsen, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, called the ruling against Brittney Settle "as naked an example as you can find of discrimination of religion and expression of religious viewpoints by students."
Congressman James Traficant (D-OH) said, "We've gotten so sophisticated and so fancy and so politically-correct that we've forgotten the basic foundations of what made America free in the first place. And we basically removed God from our agenda, be it the schools, be it the public spheres....I just can't understand the fact that...the Supreme Court just decided, `ho-hum, I'll see you later, and this isn't worth our scrutiny.' This decision shows some real discrimination in religious expression as well as freedom of speech." But perhaps Brittney's dad, Jerry Settle, put it best when he said the high court's refusal to review the decision "was consistent with the attitude that Christians are a minority you can treat any way you want to."
Imagine if Brittney had submitted a paper on, say, Susan B. Anthony to a male teacher who rejected it because the subject was an early feminist. Or suppose that Brittney had written about the Reverend Martin Luther King and was given a topic-connected zero. Such instances would have been front-page news, protestors would have flocked to rural Tennessee, media commentators would have blamed everything on the state having gone Republican in 1994, and, needless to say, the teacher would have been summarily dismissed, and quite probably either sued, arrested, or both. But because the offended group in question is Christian evangelicals, "you can treat 'em any way you want to." Or, as some opponents have admonished me, they should "stay in their churches and never come out."
Sorry, my lost countrymen, but some of us have other ideas. Like reinforcing the religious liberties supposedly guaranteed by the First Amendment. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Illinois) has introduced the Religious Equality Amendment (H.R. 121), which would restore religious freedom in the schools and the rest of public life. Hearteningly, the measure is gaining momentum in the House, which will have a like effect on the Senate. It is regrettable that such a bill even has to be introduced, and we will no doubt hear all the standard objections about "trivializing the Constitution" and such. But even opponents should give H.R. 121's supporters credit for honesty; liberals have been grafting their retrograde social policies into the founding document for years, only from the federal bench instead of the democratic process, where it's supposed to be done. So much for "conservative activism" in the courts!
Where is America's Leading Family Advocate, Bill Clinton, on this front? He promised to consider such legislation when the shock of the 1994 haymaker still had him woozy, but now, right on schedule, he has changed his mind. Now he says that a constitutional remedy "is not needed" and could be (here we go again) "divisive." Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, "Any amendment that is perceived as an effort to redefine the relationship between religion and public education has the potential to generate a deeply divisive debate across this nation." What the administration is trying to dodge is that the "relationship between religion and public education" has ALREADY been "redefined" by judicial fiat. They want to avoid not a "divisive" debate (debates are "divisive" by definition), but ANY debate, because the social Left has the upper hand in the current equation.
Is the administration truly worried about dividing the American people? No; the president is worried about alienating his political base any more than he has already. Promoting open homosexuals in the military was divisive; lifting the ban on fetal tissue research was divisive; expanding the role of women in combat was divisive; arranging for the domestic testing of the RU-486 abortion drug was divisive; attempting to nationalize American health care was divisive; the largest tax increase in history was divisive (even within his own party); Joycelyn Elders as Surgeon General was so divisive Clinton had to fire her in order to cut his losses. And he's not yet finished dividing the country: he has promised to veto the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, he has endorsed Teddy Kennedy's recent legislation extending special group rights to homosexuals in the workplace, and he told Newsweek magazine through deputy press secretary Ginny Terzano that he "doesn't think that same-sex marriages should be outlawed."
"Divisive" has come to mean "pro-family," just as "religious" has come to mean "Christian" in modern liberal lexicography. There's no such thing as liberal ideas "dividing" people; liberals can only bring about "unity," just as reincarnation, magic, and spiritualism have somehow ceased to be "religious" topics. This shows just how much the wall separating church and state has been eroded -- from the state's side.
In reality, no such "divisiveness" exists. Public opinion polls from 1962 to the present day have demonstrated overwhelming support for a school prayer amendment. Seldom has a position been so popular and yet been so thoroughly ignored by Congress. Those senators and representatives who shake off the false paralysis that social issues are a "minefield" will reap a political motherlode.
Save that term paper, Brittney; you just might want to frame it for posterity.
[HT: Blogs for Bush]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brittney Kaye Settle is a Tennessee ninth-grade student whose class was assigned to write a term paper on a subject that was "interesting, researchable, and decent." Those were the only limiting criteria. After initially selecting drama as her topic, Brittney changed her mind and asked to write on "The Life of Jesus Christ." Her teacher, Dana Ramsey, said no. Why? Because "Brittney's strong personal belief in Christianity...might make it hard for her to write a dispassionate research paper." Or, in other words, Brittney wouldn't write a paper arguing that Christ was legally insane.
Well, that meant that all religious topics were off-limits, right? Wrong. Inquiries by Brittney and her father revealed that Mrs. Ramsey approved and accepted three papers on reincarnation, magic, and spiritualism, respectively. When Brittney's father asked her why these three blatantly religious topics were acceptable but his daughter's report was not, the teacher replied that the other subjects "were not religious." She then raised the standard secularist canard that she was concerned about "the separation of church and state." Moreover, Kurt Beasley, the Settles' attorney, said Mrs. Ramsey has offered at least half a dozen other excuses for why she wouldn't accept Brittney's paper. The Settles appealed to the principal, superintendent, and local school board, all of whom, like good little educrats, backed Mrs. Ramsey.
It should be emphasized here that the Settles were never spoiling for a fight. Brittney is anything but a rebel and has steadfastly refused to grant interviews on this controversy she never asked for (primarily, no doubt, because the national media would try to humiliate her). But she decided she couldn't let this violation of her civil rights stand. So she wrote her term paper on the life of the Savior anyway, and submitted it. Her teacher gave her a zero on the assignment. Thus, Brittney Settle's grades have been made to suffer for no other reason than her religious beliefs.
Thoroughly provoked, Mr. Settle did a little further research and found out some very interesting facts. It turns out that Mrs. Ramsey has an anti-Christian, pro-Hindu religious bias that provides the background for this dispute. For twelve consecutive years she encouraged her students to write term papers on Eastern mysticism. And the fact that her superiors backed her indicates that they knew exactly what she was doing and approved of it as well. The deck, as it were, was clearly, and unconstitutionally, stacked.
With no other recourse available, the Settle family filed suit against the school in federal court. However, U.S. District Judge Thomas Wiseman didn't even permit Brittney's case to go to trial. This dismissal was appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, which upheld the lower court's decision. The Clinton Justice Department refused to request that the Supreme Court review the case, and on 27 November 1995 the high court refused to hear it. This miscarriage of justice was allowed to stand.
Some reaction to this travesty, at least, was sensible. Michael Paulsen, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, called the ruling against Brittney Settle "as naked an example as you can find of discrimination of religion and expression of religious viewpoints by students."
Congressman James Traficant (D-OH) said, "We've gotten so sophisticated and so fancy and so politically-correct that we've forgotten the basic foundations of what made America free in the first place. And we basically removed God from our agenda, be it the schools, be it the public spheres....I just can't understand the fact that...the Supreme Court just decided, `ho-hum, I'll see you later, and this isn't worth our scrutiny.' This decision shows some real discrimination in religious expression as well as freedom of speech." But perhaps Brittney's dad, Jerry Settle, put it best when he said the high court's refusal to review the decision "was consistent with the attitude that Christians are a minority you can treat any way you want to."
Imagine if Brittney had submitted a paper on, say, Susan B. Anthony to a male teacher who rejected it because the subject was an early feminist. Or suppose that Brittney had written about the Reverend Martin Luther King and was given a topic-connected zero. Such instances would have been front-page news, protestors would have flocked to rural Tennessee, media commentators would have blamed everything on the state having gone Republican in 1994, and, needless to say, the teacher would have been summarily dismissed, and quite probably either sued, arrested, or both. But because the offended group in question is Christian evangelicals, "you can treat 'em any way you want to." Or, as some opponents have admonished me, they should "stay in their churches and never come out."
Sorry, my lost countrymen, but some of us have other ideas. Like reinforcing the religious liberties supposedly guaranteed by the First Amendment. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Illinois) has introduced the Religious Equality Amendment (H.R. 121), which would restore religious freedom in the schools and the rest of public life. Hearteningly, the measure is gaining momentum in the House, which will have a like effect on the Senate. It is regrettable that such a bill even has to be introduced, and we will no doubt hear all the standard objections about "trivializing the Constitution" and such. But even opponents should give H.R. 121's supporters credit for honesty; liberals have been grafting their retrograde social policies into the founding document for years, only from the federal bench instead of the democratic process, where it's supposed to be done. So much for "conservative activism" in the courts!
Where is America's Leading Family Advocate, Bill Clinton, on this front? He promised to consider such legislation when the shock of the 1994 haymaker still had him woozy, but now, right on schedule, he has changed his mind. Now he says that a constitutional remedy "is not needed" and could be (here we go again) "divisive." Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, "Any amendment that is perceived as an effort to redefine the relationship between religion and public education has the potential to generate a deeply divisive debate across this nation." What the administration is trying to dodge is that the "relationship between religion and public education" has ALREADY been "redefined" by judicial fiat. They want to avoid not a "divisive" debate (debates are "divisive" by definition), but ANY debate, because the social Left has the upper hand in the current equation.
Is the administration truly worried about dividing the American people? No; the president is worried about alienating his political base any more than he has already. Promoting open homosexuals in the military was divisive; lifting the ban on fetal tissue research was divisive; expanding the role of women in combat was divisive; arranging for the domestic testing of the RU-486 abortion drug was divisive; attempting to nationalize American health care was divisive; the largest tax increase in history was divisive (even within his own party); Joycelyn Elders as Surgeon General was so divisive Clinton had to fire her in order to cut his losses. And he's not yet finished dividing the country: he has promised to veto the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, he has endorsed Teddy Kennedy's recent legislation extending special group rights to homosexuals in the workplace, and he told Newsweek magazine through deputy press secretary Ginny Terzano that he "doesn't think that same-sex marriages should be outlawed."
"Divisive" has come to mean "pro-family," just as "religious" has come to mean "Christian" in modern liberal lexicography. There's no such thing as liberal ideas "dividing" people; liberals can only bring about "unity," just as reincarnation, magic, and spiritualism have somehow ceased to be "religious" topics. This shows just how much the wall separating church and state has been eroded -- from the state's side.
In reality, no such "divisiveness" exists. Public opinion polls from 1962 to the present day have demonstrated overwhelming support for a school prayer amendment. Seldom has a position been so popular and yet been so thoroughly ignored by Congress. Those senators and representatives who shake off the false paralysis that social issues are a "minefield" will reap a political motherlode.
Save that term paper, Brittney; you just might want to frame it for posterity.
posted by JASmius at 10:07 AM
<<< Home